|
On June 16 2013 18:51 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 18:28 Colston wrote:On June 16 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
question: how much value does being unique has in this world, evolutionary wise?.
foetuses are not people but foetuses are unique. does evolution accounts for that loss and compensates it somehow, or there is no need for that since environmental/cultural pressure would inevitably change/bend that uniqueness and make it average/common.
if one takes into account that evolution happens in (small) steps, then that also means that evolution is/will be driven by uniqueness and not by commonness. Unique? No one is biologically unique, that's the cornerstone of medicine. Evolution will happen because you need to evolve to keep surviving, as in you've already lived a few years but the environment has changed, so your body had to adapt to survive. It won't happen in a fetus... The only kind of "unique" you will find in a human is personality. Personality is based on memory and experiences, a fetus has about the same recollection ability as a fish, it doesn't even remember yesterday. How are you able to be unique if you can't even remember yesterday? How would you make a difficult decision if you don't have any knowledge, memory and/or experiences to make your decisions from? Wtf are you saying every living being is unique else we would have the same face. Our own genes is the combination of the genes of our parents. Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes and each chromosome within a pair is slightly different from the other. Now a parent give you 23 chromosomes the other 23 too. It makes 2^23=2x2x2x...x2, 23 times = 8388608 There are 8388608 different combinations of one's parents chromosomes, one of them is taken randomly (because one ovule has one combination of 23 chromosomes and one spermatozoa too and they meet randomly) and if you add to that the mutations and abnormalities that occur all the time during procreation and the creation of ovules and spermatozoa, every newborn, every living being differ from one another on the genetical level (or genotype) so also on the physical level (or macroscopic). Differences appear randomly and some differences help a group of people get more chicks and to reproduce more then these differences will stay. Evolution happens all the time not only to keep surviving. At the beginning there were only bacterias they could survive already, they just evolved naturally and randomly just like every living being right now. Certain evolutions just help to survive and/or reproduce more.
Biologically we are similar mutations happen but lots of them have little or no effect and usually when they make themselves prevalent they are hardly beneficial .
|
On June 16 2013 18:52 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 18:51 Acertos wrote:On June 16 2013 18:28 Colston wrote:On June 16 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
question: how much value does being unique has in this world, evolutionary wise?.
foetuses are not people but foetuses are unique. does evolution accounts for that loss and compensates it somehow, or there is no need for that since environmental/cultural pressure would inevitably change/bend that uniqueness and make it average/common.
if one takes into account that evolution happens in (small) steps, then that also means that evolution is/will be driven by uniqueness and not by commonness. Unique? No one is biologically unique, that's the cornerstone of medicine. Evolution will happen because you need to evolve to keep surviving, as in you've already lived a few years but the environment has changed, so your body had to adapt to survive. It won't happen in a fetus... The only kind of "unique" you will find in a human is personality. Personality is based on memory and experiences, a fetus has about the same recollection ability as a fish, it doesn't even remember yesterday. How are you able to be unique if you can't even remember yesterday? How would you make a difficult decision if you don't have any knowledge, memory and/or experiences to make your decisions from? Wtf are you saying every living being is unique else we would have the same face. Our own genes is the combination of the genes of our parents. Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes and each chromosome within a pair is slightly different from the other. Now a parent give you 23 chromosomes the other 23 too. It makes 2^23=2x2x2x...x2, 23 times = 8388608 There are 8388608 different combinations of one's parents chromosomes, one of them is taken randomly (because one ovule has one combination of 23 chromosomes and one spermatozoa too and they meet randomly) and if you add to that the mutations and abnormalities that occur all the time during procreation and the creation of ovules and spermatozoa, every newborn, every living being differ from one another on the genetical level (or genotype) so also on the physical level (or macroscopic). Differences appear randomly and some differences help a group of people get more chicks and to reproduce more then these differences will stay. Evolution happens all the time not only to keep surviving. At the beginning there were only bacterias they could survive already, they just evolved naturally and randomly just like every living being right now. Certain evolutions just help to survive and/or reproduce more. Biologically we are similar mutations happen but lots of them have little or no effect and usually when they make themselves prevalent they are hardly beneficial .
I'm not arguing about that.
We are just biologically unique. Biologic also contains genetics and macroscopic phenotype. We have huge similarities but we are unique, you can't argue about that.
Also i'm not sure if you quite understand but retarded people have had huge mutations and have for example 3 chromosomes on one pair called trisomy 21. So yes mutations are important, albinism is the same, it's linked to mutations and have huge consequences.
|
On June 16 2013 18:51 Acertos wrote:
Wtf are you saying every living being is unique else we would have the same face.
Our own genes is the combination of the genes of our parents. Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes and each chromosome within a pair is slightly different from the other. Now a parent give you 23 chromosomes the other 23 too. It makes 2^23=2x2x2x...x2, 23 times = 8388608
There are 8388608 different combinations of one's parents chromosomes, one of them is taken randomly (because one ovule has one combination of 23 chromosomes and one spermatozoa too and they meet randomly) and if you add to that the mutations and abnormalities that occur all the time during procreation and the creation of ovules and spermatozoa, every newborn, every living being differ from one another on the genetic level (or genotype) so also on the physical level (or macroscopic). Differences appear randomly and if some differences help a group of people get more chicks and to reproduce more then these differences will stay for other generations.
Evolution happens all the time not only to keep surviving. At the beginning there were only bacterias they could survive already, they just evolved naturally and randomly just like every living being right now. Certain evolutions just help to survive and/or reproduce more.
No, what I was trying to say without having to delve into genetics is that you will find a gene with the same properties as yours, say red hair, in someone else aswell. I'm not saying we're completely the same, I'm saying we are all constructed from the same genetic template. And using your math, even with all those different genetic combinations you are bound to find similar people on the planet.
What makes us truly unique is the way we think, feel and make decisions. Our mental traits.
|
On June 16 2013 18:57 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 18:52 Shakattak wrote:On June 16 2013 18:51 Acertos wrote:On June 16 2013 18:28 Colston wrote:On June 16 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
question: how much value does being unique has in this world, evolutionary wise?.
foetuses are not people but foetuses are unique. does evolution accounts for that loss and compensates it somehow, or there is no need for that since environmental/cultural pressure would inevitably change/bend that uniqueness and make it average/common.
if one takes into account that evolution happens in (small) steps, then that also means that evolution is/will be driven by uniqueness and not by commonness. Unique? No one is biologically unique, that's the cornerstone of medicine. Evolution will happen because you need to evolve to keep surviving, as in you've already lived a few years but the environment has changed, so your body had to adapt to survive. It won't happen in a fetus... The only kind of "unique" you will find in a human is personality. Personality is based on memory and experiences, a fetus has about the same recollection ability as a fish, it doesn't even remember yesterday. How are you able to be unique if you can't even remember yesterday? How would you make a difficult decision if you don't have any knowledge, memory and/or experiences to make your decisions from? Wtf are you saying every living being is unique else we would have the same face. Our own genes is the combination of the genes of our parents. Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes and each chromosome within a pair is slightly different from the other. Now a parent give you 23 chromosomes the other 23 too. It makes 2^23=2x2x2x...x2, 23 times = 8388608 There are 8388608 different combinations of one's parents chromosomes, one of them is taken randomly (because one ovule has one combination of 23 chromosomes and one spermatozoa too and they meet randomly) and if you add to that the mutations and abnormalities that occur all the time during procreation and the creation of ovules and spermatozoa, every newborn, every living being differ from one another on the genetical level (or genotype) so also on the physical level (or macroscopic). Differences appear randomly and some differences help a group of people get more chicks and to reproduce more then these differences will stay. Evolution happens all the time not only to keep surviving. At the beginning there were only bacterias they could survive already, they just evolved naturally and randomly just like every living being right now. Certain evolutions just help to survive and/or reproduce more. Biologically we are similar mutations happen but lots of them have little or no effect and usually when they make themselves prevalent they are hardly beneficial . I'm not arguing about that. We are just biologically unique. Biologic also contains genetics and macroscopic phenotype. We have huge similarities but we are unique, you can't argue about that.
I never did  , people are unique different in a lot of ways but we are still all compatible :D the human genome is vast but we still have many more similarities to each other than differences
|
On June 16 2013 18:59 Colston wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 18:51 Acertos wrote:
Wtf are you saying every living being is unique else we would have the same face.
Our own genes is the combination of the genes of our parents. Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes and each chromosome within a pair is slightly different from the other. Now a parent give you 23 chromosomes the other 23 too. It makes 2^23=2x2x2x...x2, 23 times = 8388608
There are 8388608 different combinations of one's parents chromosomes, one of them is taken randomly (because one ovule has one combination of 23 chromosomes and one spermatozoa too and they meet randomly) and if you add to that the mutations and abnormalities that occur all the time during procreation and the creation of ovules and spermatozoa, every newborn, every living being differ from one another on the genetic level (or genotype) so also on the physical level (or macroscopic). Differences appear randomly and if some differences help a group of people get more chicks and to reproduce more then these differences will stay for other generations.
Evolution happens all the time not only to keep surviving. At the beginning there were only bacterias they could survive already, they just evolved naturally and randomly just like every living being right now. Certain evolutions just help to survive and/or reproduce more.
No, what I was trying to say without having to delve into genetics is that you will find a gene with the same properties as yours, say red hair, in someone else aswell. I'm not saying we're completely the same, I'm saying we are all constructed from the same genetic template. And using your math, even with all those different genetic combinations you are bound to find similar people on the planet. What makes us truly unique is the way we think, feel and make decisions. Our mental traits.
Ok but again the way we think is also extremely linked with genetics because our brains are made different some people are more gifted than other in term of intelligence, physical apparence, strengh etc... And it all shape the way we think along with how we live.
|
Oh, and please keep in mind, I'm not talking about the evolution of the human race, I'm talking about aborting one fetus because you didn't want a kid.
I'm saying you having that abortion because you got raped won't stop the evolution of the human race in general. I might have come across as if I meant something completely different, but I'm trying to keep this somewhat on topic.
|
On June 16 2013 19:05 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 18:59 Colston wrote:On June 16 2013 18:51 Acertos wrote:
Wtf are you saying every living being is unique else we would have the same face.
Our own genes is the combination of the genes of our parents. Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes and each chromosome within a pair is slightly different from the other. Now a parent give you 23 chromosomes the other 23 too. It makes 2^23=2x2x2x...x2, 23 times = 8388608
There are 8388608 different combinations of one's parents chromosomes, one of them is taken randomly (because one ovule has one combination of 23 chromosomes and one spermatozoa too and they meet randomly) and if you add to that the mutations and abnormalities that occur all the time during procreation and the creation of ovules and spermatozoa, every newborn, every living being differ from one another on the genetic level (or genotype) so also on the physical level (or macroscopic). Differences appear randomly and if some differences help a group of people get more chicks and to reproduce more then these differences will stay for other generations.
Evolution happens all the time not only to keep surviving. At the beginning there were only bacterias they could survive already, they just evolved naturally and randomly just like every living being right now. Certain evolutions just help to survive and/or reproduce more.
No, what I was trying to say without having to delve into genetics is that you will find a gene with the same properties as yours, say red hair, in someone else aswell. I'm not saying we're completely the same, I'm saying we are all constructed from the same genetic template. And using your math, even with all those different genetic combinations you are bound to find similar people on the planet. What makes us truly unique is the way we think, feel and make decisions. Our mental traits. Ok but again the way we think is also extremely linked with genetics because our brains are made different some people are more gifted than other in term of intelligence, physical apparence, strengh etc... And it all shape the way we think along with how we live.
You cannot argue intelligence for genetics that cannot be proven , smart parents don't always have smart kids .
|
I don't make a distinction from rape and incest abortions to general abortions. Pre-viability abortion for any reason or no reason at all. Post, banned except for life of the mother. The reason is that we're deciding as a society that a viable fetus has the right to life unless it's killing someone else. Can someone tell me why a late term, post viability abortion is justified for rape/incest if we have made that decision that viability is the line where the fetus gains a right to life?
|
On June 16 2013 18:28 Colston wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
question: how much value does being unique has in this world, evolutionary wise?.
foetuses are not people but foetuses are unique. does evolution accounts for that loss and compensates it somehow, or there is no need for that since environmental/cultural pressure would inevitably change/bend that uniqueness and make it average/common.
if one takes into account that evolution happens in (small) steps, then that also means that evolution is/will be driven by uniqueness and not by commonness. Unique? No one is biologically unique, that's the cornerstone of medicine. Evolution will happen because you need to evolve to keep surviving, as in you've already lived a few years but the environment has changed, so your body had to adapt to survive. It won't happen in a fetus... The only kind of "unique" you will find in a human is personality. Personality is based on memory and experiences, a fetus has about the same recollection ability as a fish, it doesn't even remember yesterday. How are you able to be unique if you can't even remember yesterday? How would you make a difficult decision if you don't have any knowledge, memory and/or experiences to make your decisions from?
the biological matter is not unique but the way it works within an organism is unique (to it). it's like a fingerprint.
it's why identical twins are never identical even if they have/shared the same genome.
|
On June 16 2013 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
the biological matter is not unique but the way it works within an organism is unique (to it). it's like a fingerprint.
it's why identical twins are never identical even if they have/shared the same genome.
I'll concede. This is going way off topic now.
My knowledge of biology isn't my strong suit, and I might be completely off it when I said we aren't unqiue, but I meant our "building blocks" are still the same. However the differences we value as a society is something that will appear after birth, and the way I see humans as unique is mentally, because we all share the same basic form. Evolution won't stop because people are having abortions, they will continue as people will always have to adapt to changing circumstances.
|
On June 16 2013 19:11 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I don't make a distinction from rape and incest abortions to general abortions. Pre-viability abortion for any reason or no reason at all. Post, banned except for life of the mother. The reason is that we're deciding as a society that a viable fetus has the right to life unless it's killing someone else. Can someone tell me why a late term, post viability abortion is justified for rape/incest if we have made that decision that viability is the line where the fetus gains a right to life?
Please note that I'm not advocating the idea, just trying to explain the reasoning behind it.
Abortion in general isn't a moral decision in the sense of distinguishing right and wrong. Nobody wants to have an abortion, nobody would argue that going for an abortion is a good thing. It's not about good and bad, it's about bad or worse. For those arguing in favor of it, abortion appears as the lesser of two evils.
And then it's about determining how evil evil actually is: A woman who got pregnant even though she didn't want to has a problem, but a woman who got raped and impregnated against her will is worse. Thus, if you compare these two kinds of evil against the evil of abortion, one might reason that the former doesn't justify such a radical form of regulation while the latter does. Basically, it estimates a hierarchy of evils as (unwanted pregnancy < abortion < forced pregnancy).
Another factor that plays a role is controllability. History tells us that in the event of outlawed abortions, some people go for rather desperate measures. One might argue that rape victims will be more inclined towards drastic solutions... and then it is also a mundane pragmatic question: Do we want them to have the abortion in a clinic, or do we accept the risk of them using a coat-hanger to do it themselves?
|
On June 16 2013 19:11 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I don't make a distinction from rape and incest abortions to general abortions. Pre-viability abortion for any reason or no reason at all. Post, banned except for life of the mother. The reason is that we're deciding as a society that a viable fetus has the right to life unless it's killing someone else. Can someone tell me why a late term, post viability abortion is justified for rape/incest if we have made that decision that viability is the line where the fetus gains a right to life?
I don't believe it is , if you were to get an abortion it should be early on in the pregnancy regardless if its rape or not .
|
On June 16 2013 19:22 Poffel wrote:
Please note that I'm not advocating the idea, just trying to explain the reasoning behind it.
Abortion in general isn't a moral decision in the sense of distinguishing right and wrong. Nobody wants to have an abortion, nobody would argue that going for an abortion is a good thing. It's not about good and bad, it's about bad or worse. For those arguing in favor of it, abortion appears as the lesser of two evils.
And then it's about determining how evil evil actually is: A woman who got pregnant even though she didn't want to has a problem, but a woman who got raped and impregnated against her will is worse. Thus, if you compare these two kinds of evil against the evil of abortion, one might reason that the former doesn't justify such a radical form of regulation while the latter does. Basically, it estimates a hierarchy of evils as (unwanted pregnancy < abortion < forced pregnancy).
Another factor that plays a role is controllability. History tells us that in the event of outlawed abortions, some people go for rather desperate measures. One might argue that rape victims will be more inclined towards drastic solutions... and then it is also a mundane pragmatic question: Do we want them to have the abortion in a clinic, or do we accept the risk of them using a coat-hanger to do it themselves?
Nail. On. Head.
Or worst case scenario: Forcing the child be born and the mother ends up abusing / neglecting it as it reminds her of the rapist, it might even look like him.
|
On June 16 2013 19:22 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 19:11 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I don't make a distinction from rape and incest abortions to general abortions. Pre-viability abortion for any reason or no reason at all. Post, banned except for life of the mother. The reason is that we're deciding as a society that a viable fetus has the right to life unless it's killing someone else. Can someone tell me why a late term, post viability abortion is justified for rape/incest if we have made that decision that viability is the line where the fetus gains a right to life? Please note that I'm not advocating the idea, just trying to explain the reasoning behind it. Abortion in general isn't a moral decision in the sense of distinguishing right and wrong. Nobody wants to have an abortion, nobody would argue that going for an abortion is a good thing. It's not about good and bad, it's about bad or worse. For those arguing in favor of it, abortion appears as the lesser of two evils. And then it's about determining how evil evil actually is: A woman who got pregnant even though she didn't want to has a problem, but a woman who got raped and impregnated against her will is worse. Thus, if you compare these two kinds of evil against the evil of abortion, one might reason that the former doesn't justify such a radical form of regulation while the latter does. Basically, it estimates a hierarchy of evils as (unwanted pregnancy < abortion < forced pregnancy). Another factor that plays a role is controllability. History tells us that in the event of outlawed abortions, some people go for rather desperate measures. One might argue that rape victims will be more inclined towards drastic solutions... and then it is also a mundane pragmatic question: Do we want them to have the abortion in a clinic, or do we accept the risk of them using a coat-hanger to do it themselves?
I don't think this gets to the heart of my objection. I'm not against abortions in the case of rape/incest or any reason for 20 or 24 weeks, over half the duration of pregnancy. So a rape victim isn't prevented from getting an abortion. And the great majority of abortions are obviously done much sooner. It seems to me that if we have made a judgement that the fetus is a life worthy of protection post-viability, then the hierarchy of evils is murder > forced pregnancy (after having had 20-24 weeks to abort).
I could understand if you don't think the fetus is a life until the very moment of birth, although that would require permitting abortions to the last second. But if viability is the standard for right to life exceptions not dealing with self-defense seem to be on shaky grounds, logically.
|
On June 16 2013 17:45 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 17:25 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Yes! of course! Abortion should always be allowed, who am I to force somebody else into having a child that isnt wanted? How is that not a horrible thing to do? Because the rights of women are less important than God, of course. An egg is not a chicken, even according to the strictest interpretations of the old testament, but of course when it comes to women, people know better than the written word of God, and can explain what "God actually meant". And remember, if you do subscribe to that kind of ideology then masturbation is an equal sin to abortion; you are killing unborn children every time you jack it. The real basis for this is quite simple. Every type of animal has both male and female names for it. Except for God. He was a dude.
The god of the old testament is pro abortion..
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?
http://www.evilbible.com/god's not pro-life.htm
basically, people who are basing their views on abortion on the bible, haven't actually read the bible..
|
Birth control in any form is a good thing. Simply the state of the world right now, more human children is not what is needed for humanity or the planet (all other lifeforms). Abortion is a good thing in that it is birth control. Generally there is no reason to not have the abortion early on in the pregnancy even in the case of rape or incest so for most cases this new legislation is not really applicable as rape victims or those who got accidentally pregnant through incest would, like anyone else who is pregnant, get an abortion before that controversial point of ~20 weeks. I suppose where the legislation would be applicable is when one of these pregnant women was unable to get an abortion for that period of time because of something like detainment (she was raped and impregnated and then denied the freedom to go to a clinic for 20+ weeks). I guess the point of the legislation would then be to allow her to get the abortion at that point. I think it's reasonable. The fetus is perhaps more conscious then but is still only a potential person, and not a being who is desperately hanging on to life like born people who it is unacceptable to kill. In the case of voluntary incest, this should be a non-issue considering there shouldn't be any sort of detainment going on (if there is, it sound like a case of rape and incest).
|
On June 16 2013 19:52 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 19:22 Poffel wrote:On June 16 2013 19:11 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I don't make a distinction from rape and incest abortions to general abortions. Pre-viability abortion for any reason or no reason at all. Post, banned except for life of the mother. The reason is that we're deciding as a society that a viable fetus has the right to life unless it's killing someone else. Can someone tell me why a late term, post viability abortion is justified for rape/incest if we have made that decision that viability is the line where the fetus gains a right to life? Please note that I'm not advocating the idea, just trying to explain the reasoning behind it. Abortion in general isn't a moral decision in the sense of distinguishing right and wrong. Nobody wants to have an abortion, nobody would argue that going for an abortion is a good thing. It's not about good and bad, it's about bad or worse. For those arguing in favor of it, abortion appears as the lesser of two evils. And then it's about determining how evil evil actually is: A woman who got pregnant even though she didn't want to has a problem, but a woman who got raped and impregnated against her will is worse. Thus, if you compare these two kinds of evil against the evil of abortion, one might reason that the former doesn't justify such a radical form of regulation while the latter does. Basically, it estimates a hierarchy of evils as (unwanted pregnancy < abortion < forced pregnancy). Another factor that plays a role is controllability. History tells us that in the event of outlawed abortions, some people go for rather desperate measures. One might argue that rape victims will be more inclined towards drastic solutions... and then it is also a mundane pragmatic question: Do we want them to have the abortion in a clinic, or do we accept the risk of them using a coat-hanger to do it themselves? I don't think this gets to the heart of my objection. I'm not against abortions in the case of rape/incest or any reason for 20 or 24 weeks, over half the duration of pregnancy. So a rape victim isn't prevented from getting an abortion. And the great majority of abortions are obviously done much sooner. It seems to me that if we have made a judgement that the fetus is a life worthy of protection post-viability, then the hierarchy of evils is murder > forced pregnancy (after having had 20-24 weeks to abort). I could understand if you don't think the fetus is a life until the very moment of birth, although that would require permitting abortions to the last second. But if viability is the standard for right to life exceptions not dealing with self-defense seem to be on shaky grounds, logically.
I understand your point, and I would definitely agree that the grounds are very shaky... precisely because it's not about logically determinable moral rules but about exceptions to these rules, and there's neither certainty nor morality to be found in those (maybe other than being able to avoid the criminalization of a desperate woman for being raped).
|
On June 16 2013 20:44 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 19:52 NovaTheFeared wrote:On June 16 2013 19:22 Poffel wrote:On June 16 2013 19:11 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I don't make a distinction from rape and incest abortions to general abortions. Pre-viability abortion for any reason or no reason at all. Post, banned except for life of the mother. The reason is that we're deciding as a society that a viable fetus has the right to life unless it's killing someone else. Can someone tell me why a late term, post viability abortion is justified for rape/incest if we have made that decision that viability is the line where the fetus gains a right to life? Please note that I'm not advocating the idea, just trying to explain the reasoning behind it. Abortion in general isn't a moral decision in the sense of distinguishing right and wrong. Nobody wants to have an abortion, nobody would argue that going for an abortion is a good thing. It's not about good and bad, it's about bad or worse. For those arguing in favor of it, abortion appears as the lesser of two evils. And then it's about determining how evil evil actually is: A woman who got pregnant even though she didn't want to has a problem, but a woman who got raped and impregnated against her will is worse. Thus, if you compare these two kinds of evil against the evil of abortion, one might reason that the former doesn't justify such a radical form of regulation while the latter does. Basically, it estimates a hierarchy of evils as (unwanted pregnancy < abortion < forced pregnancy). Another factor that plays a role is controllability. History tells us that in the event of outlawed abortions, some people go for rather desperate measures. One might argue that rape victims will be more inclined towards drastic solutions... and then it is also a mundane pragmatic question: Do we want them to have the abortion in a clinic, or do we accept the risk of them using a coat-hanger to do it themselves? I don't think this gets to the heart of my objection. I'm not against abortions in the case of rape/incest or any reason for 20 or 24 weeks, over half the duration of pregnancy. So a rape victim isn't prevented from getting an abortion. And the great majority of abortions are obviously done much sooner. It seems to me that if we have made a judgement that the fetus is a life worthy of protection post-viability, then the hierarchy of evils is murder > forced pregnancy (after having had 20-24 weeks to abort). I could understand if you don't think the fetus is a life until the very moment of birth, although that would require permitting abortions to the last second. But if viability is the standard for right to life exceptions not dealing with self-defense seem to be on shaky grounds, logically. I understand your point, and I would definitely agree that the grounds are very shaky... precisely because it's not about logically determinable moral rules but about exceptions to these rules, and there's neither certainty nor morality to be found in those (maybe other than being able to avoid the criminalization of a desperate woman for being raped).
When then is a fetus already a life or a person? I mean what are the criteria in judging this?
|
On June 16 2013 19:21 Colston wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
the biological matter is not unique but the way it works within an organism is unique (to it). it's like a fingerprint.
it's why identical twins are never identical even if they have/shared the same genome. I'll concede. This is going way off topic now. My knowledge of biology isn't my strong suit, and I might be completely off it when I said we aren't unqiue, but I meant our "building blocks" are still the same. However the differences we value as a society is something that will appear after birth, and the way I see humans as unique is mentally, because we all share the same basic form. Evolution won't stop because people are having abortions, they will continue as people will always have to adapt to changing circumstances.
it's an idea, a concept. there is nothing really to concede to  .
the logic of it is quite simple: the genome/building block is the same but through epigenome, the function of a genome can change. the epigenome is dynamically altered by environmental conditions, environmental conditions that start inside the womb.
a simpler way would be: at second 0 of conception we are all the same; at second 1 of conception we are all different/unique. now, if you take into account that between 0 an 1 exist an infinity of numbers ...
i'm inclined to believe that evolution does account for loses but i can't help but entertain the idea that if no evolutionary material would be lost until now, i'd be chilling on a space station somewhere in Alpha Quadrant talking to a klingon. 
|
On June 16 2013 20:49 Orangered wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 20:44 Poffel wrote:On June 16 2013 19:52 NovaTheFeared wrote:On June 16 2013 19:22 Poffel wrote:On June 16 2013 19:11 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I don't make a distinction from rape and incest abortions to general abortions. Pre-viability abortion for any reason or no reason at all. Post, banned except for life of the mother. The reason is that we're deciding as a society that a viable fetus has the right to life unless it's killing someone else. Can someone tell me why a late term, post viability abortion is justified for rape/incest if we have made that decision that viability is the line where the fetus gains a right to life? Please note that I'm not advocating the idea, just trying to explain the reasoning behind it. Abortion in general isn't a moral decision in the sense of distinguishing right and wrong. Nobody wants to have an abortion, nobody would argue that going for an abortion is a good thing. It's not about good and bad, it's about bad or worse. For those arguing in favor of it, abortion appears as the lesser of two evils. And then it's about determining how evil evil actually is: A woman who got pregnant even though she didn't want to has a problem, but a woman who got raped and impregnated against her will is worse. Thus, if you compare these two kinds of evil against the evil of abortion, one might reason that the former doesn't justify such a radical form of regulation while the latter does. Basically, it estimates a hierarchy of evils as (unwanted pregnancy < abortion < forced pregnancy). Another factor that plays a role is controllability. History tells us that in the event of outlawed abortions, some people go for rather desperate measures. One might argue that rape victims will be more inclined towards drastic solutions... and then it is also a mundane pragmatic question: Do we want them to have the abortion in a clinic, or do we accept the risk of them using a coat-hanger to do it themselves? I don't think this gets to the heart of my objection. I'm not against abortions in the case of rape/incest or any reason for 20 or 24 weeks, over half the duration of pregnancy. So a rape victim isn't prevented from getting an abortion. And the great majority of abortions are obviously done much sooner. It seems to me that if we have made a judgement that the fetus is a life worthy of protection post-viability, then the hierarchy of evils is murder > forced pregnancy (after having had 20-24 weeks to abort). I could understand if you don't think the fetus is a life until the very moment of birth, although that would require permitting abortions to the last second. But if viability is the standard for right to life exceptions not dealing with self-defense seem to be on shaky grounds, logically. I understand your point, and I would definitely agree that the grounds are very shaky... precisely because it's not about logically determinable moral rules but about exceptions to these rules, and there's neither certainty nor morality to be found in those (maybe other than being able to avoid the criminalization of a desperate woman for being raped). When then is a fetus already a life or a person? I mean what are the criteria in judging this?
I'm by no means an expert on that matter... Ghostcom referenced earlier that it's a matter of the fetus' survival chance:
On June 16 2013 04:20 Ghostcom wrote:The survival chance of a 20 week fetus is less than 50%. The usual viability limit is around week 26. The 20 week limit for abortion was set due to the uncertainty of date of conception (as well as it was set somewhat arbitrarily). EDIT: This wiki-link is actually rather precise - has the survival chance at week 20 at zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
Notably, these are the criteria used in the USA. In some other countries, the legislation on abortion nowadays uses slightly different criteria than survivability, such as sensibility, reactivity, or pain thresholds.
(Not really-)Fun fact: Historically, the whole debate on "When is a fetus a person?" started with Thomas Aquinas (I kid you not!) who determined that the fetus receives their soul at the 28th day after conception... and modern medicine has since transformed this idea (multiple times) according to empirical criteria on prenatal development while keeping the binary distinction between a non-dignified and dignified status intact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
